Search for: "People v. Andrews (1989)"
Results 41 - 60
of 86
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Oct 2015, 10:30 am
Fyock v. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 2:11 pm
Case style: Neese v. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 2:11 pm
Case style: Neese v. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:56 pm
Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), and the Eighth Circuit’s test in C.B.C. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 8:09 am
(Dickerson v. [read post]
30 Oct 2014, 2:24 pm
I thought I’d pass along this very interesting article by Judge Andrew J. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 8:10 am
You can get a better idea of what this lecture is about via fellow IP scholar Andrew Christie's website here. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm
The more political and personal preferences are involved, and the greater the complexity of the underlying scientific analysis, the more we should expect people, historians, judges, and juries, to ignore the Royal Society’s Nullius in verba,” and to rely upon the largely irrelevant factors of reputation. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 3:00 am
United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) and United States v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 8:17 am
The Legislative Budget Board, however, proposed a number of additions to this cost, to better take into account the costs of complying with Ruiz v. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 5:35 am
(Dickerson v. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 8:31 am
The overwhelming result of all trials ends in a verdict of guilt for the accused and at that point another state official (bailiff, prison warden, parole officer, etc.) is obligated to apply the decision.[9] However, Dubber clarifies that the reference to the State in the style of cause is not thought to be a requirement for the publicness of a dispute.[10] He cites German cases that refer simply to the ‘Criminal Case against X’; a reference to ‘the… [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 8:31 am
The overwhelming result of all trials ends in a verdict of guilt for the accused and at that point another state official (bailiff, prison warden, parole officer, etc.) is obligated to apply the decision.[9] However, Dubber clarifies that the reference to the State in the style of cause is not thought to be a requirement for the publicness of a dispute.[10] He cites German cases that refer simply to the ‘Criminal Case against X’; a reference to ‘the… [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 9:01 pm
What the original draftsmen (that is, the people who actually wrote the words) subjectively intended might be evidence of what the words meant at the time, but any divergence between the drafters’ subjective intentions and the most likely understandings of those words at the time of enactment would be resolved in favor of the latter. [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 6:36 pm
(IIT v. [read post]
2 Sep 2012, 6:06 am
Bush v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 7:30 am
Bell, 649 N.W. 2d 243, 252 (N.D. 2002) (noting the legislature amended North Dakota’s drug laws in 1989 to include the culpability requirement of “willfully” as an element of the offense of possession of a controlled substance, thereby eliminating possession as a strict liability offense); State v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 7:02 am
Lone Wolf v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 7:02 am
Lone Wolf v. [read post]
15 May 2012, 8:06 am
In 2006, in a case styled Kansas v. [read post]
